Blarge alert!!!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NCAA RULE is the same as the NFHS RULE. If two officials signal conflicting fouls on a play, then the resolution is a double foul.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A.R. 172.

A1 drives to the basket and:
(1) The referee calls a player-control foul and an umpire calls a
block; or
(2) The referee calls a charge and an umpire calls a block.

RULING: This is uncharacteristic of a double personal foul where

one official adjudicates the obviously committed fouls against two opponents.
(Men) In (1) and (2), the two officials disagree that the fouls
occurred simultaneously. In (1), the ball shall be awarded to Team A,
the team in control, at the point of interruption with no reset of the
shot clock.
(Rule 2-11.7.f, 7-4.1.d and 7-5.8)
In (2), the two officials disagree as to whether there was a charge
or a block, however, the ball was released by A1. Although there is
no team control while a ball is in flight, when the goal is successful,
play shall resume at the point of interruption by awarding the ball to
Team B, the team not credited with the score, at the end line with the
privilege to run the end line. When the try is not successful, play shall
resume at the point of interruption with the use of the alternating
possession arrow and a reset of the shot clock. (Rule 7-5.9)

This case play has things in common with the NFHS play but also goes into more detail about one thing which I think is significant.

"The officials disagree."

Obviously, this is the case originally, but if the officials can confer and one can convince the other of the proper call, there would no longer be a disagreement, and no need for the double foul call. Also, I think it is significant that the word signal does not appear in either play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This case play has things in common with the NFHS play but also goes into more detail about one thing which I think is significant.

"The officials disagree."

Obviously, this is the case originally, but if the officials can confer and one can convince the other of the proper call, there would no longer be a disagreement, and no need for the double foul call. Also, I think it is significant that the word signal does not appear in either play.

I honestly think it is assumed that if you made a call, you signaled the type of foul. You really have not called anything until you signal anyway.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I honestly think it is assumed that if you made a call, you signaled the type of foul.

Peace

This is true, but this is not the point. The point is, does a preliminary signal absolutely obligate one to make a certain call. I see nothing which indicates this. Others here seem to indicate that the two officials making opposite preliminary signals necessitates the double foul call.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Prelim signals are to be handled with a double foul

Originally Posted by walter

If you have prelims, in NFHS, you have to penalize both.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Of course, the best way to avoid that situation is for the primary official to make the call, or for the two officials to not give a preliminary signal before making eye contact to determine who will sell the call.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If two officials signal conflicting fouls on a play, then the resolution is a double foul.

So, you guys correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that if you are positive it is a blocking foul, but have not made the block signal, but you do have a fist up, and the other guy signals PC, it is ok to walk away from the call, but if you have made the block signal, you will report a double foul?
Also, if the other guy sees your signal, says "My bad," and walks away, what would you do then?

[Raymond]

It was definitely a block but it was clearly in the C's primary.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, you guys correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that if you are positive it is a blocking foul, but have not made the block signal, but you do have a fist up, and the other guy signals PC, it is ok to walk away from the call, but if you have made the block signal, you will report a double foul?
Also, if the other guy sees your signal, says "My bad," and walks away, what would you do then?

Yep, that is exactly how it works.
Only one signal is given, then it is okay for only one type of foul to be reported. If two signals are given, then two fouls must be reported and the result is a double foul.
Neither official is permitted to simply drop his signal and walk away. If an official did that, then a coach would definitely have a right to get upset.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, that is exactly how it works.
Only one signal is given, then it is okay for only one type of foul to be reported. If two signals are given, then two fouls must be reported and the result is a double foul.

If the second official has his fist up, this is not a signal?

[btaylor64]

First of all it is a block. Player doesn't beat the alighted offensive player to the spot. This is where i don't like "takes it in the torso" philosophy. It is a decent, middle of the road philosophy if you ask me. There are way too many instances where a guy takes it in the torso and it should NOT be a charge.

Secondly, is most everybody saying that it would be a charge had he just tried to dribble past the defender instead of jump stop past him?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

First of all it is a block. Player doesn't beat the alighted offensive player to the spot. This is where i don't like "takes it in the torso" philosophy. It is a decent, middle of the road philosophy if you ask me. There are way too many instances where a guy takes it in the torso and it should NOT be a charge.

Great, time for our dose of pro philosophy.

Let me make it short and quick for everyone: FAVOR THE OFFENSE.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Secondly, is most everybody saying that it would be a charge had he just tried to dribble past the defender instead of jump stop past him?

Not only are people here saying that, but that's what the NFHS and NCAA rules books both say.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Great, time for our dose of pro philosophy.

Let me make it short and quick for everyone: FAVOR THE OFFENSE.



Not only are people here saying that, but that's what the NFHS and NCAA rules books both say.

So a defender can just slide underneath a moving and/or dribbling opponent and as long as he is somewhat in front of him its an offensive foul? That just doesn't make good sense to me. Sorry.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is true, but this is not the point. The point is, does a preliminary signal absolutely obligate one to make a certain call. I see nothing which indicates this. Others here seem to indicate that the two officials making opposite preliminary signals necessitates the double foul call.

You may not, but I think that is trying to pick nits.

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, you guys correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that if you are positive it is a blocking foul, but have not made the block signal, but you do have a fist up, and the other guy signals PC, it is ok to walk away from the call, but if you have made the block signal, you will report a double foul?
Also, if the other guy sees your signal, says "My bad," and walks away, what would you do then?

If an official has not signaled anything, than it means little or nothing unless the calling official wants to consider the information. If we use that logic, what if we both have a foul and one thinks it is flagrant and the other thinks it is just intentional? We cannot call both just because. We have to pick one. In this case the rules state if both have signaled/called, then you cannot take either of them back. I do not see anyone interpreting the rules that way other than what you have stated. If it means that much to you I guess you could get into a debate with someone on the floor. I would suggest that you do not do that at that level. You might be the only one feeling that way, because the rules are meant to be the same as the NF interpretation.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We have to pick one. In this case the rules state if both have signaled/called, then you cannot take either of them back.

These two words are not synonyms. Nevada said that the two terms are used interchangeably in the NCAA books. I'd like to see an example of this.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

These two words are not synonyms. Nevada said that the two terms are used interchangeably in the NCAA books. I'd like to see an example of this.

And if the wording is not to you liking, then what are you going to do? It is not going to change the interpretation of the rule.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This case play has things in common with the NFHS play but also goes into more detail about one thing which I think is significant.

"The officials disagree."

Obviously, this is the case originally, but if the officials can confer and one can convince the other of the proper call, there would no longer be a disagreement, and no need for the double foul call. Also, I think it is significant that the word signal does not appear in either play.

1. I used the word "signal" specifically for you. I knew that you would state your opinion about there being a difference between signalling a foul and calling a foul. The truth is that there isn't one. The NCAA rules writers use those words interchangeably.

2. The reason that I wrote that the wording was fuzzy is because I believe that this instance of "disagree" is an error and should read "agree" instead: "(Men) In (1) and (2), the two officials disagree that the fouls
occurred simultaneously."

3. How this play was handled by Jim Burr, who is one of the best in the business and has been for some time, should serve as conclusive proof to you of how it is to be done at the NCAAM and NFHS levels. I included the NCAAW ruling from the AR as well, so that you would know that what you espouse is actually the NCAAW ruling and definitely different.